Re: what to make of this fellow named __ipairs?

["Stuart P. Bentley" <stuart@...>]

?>Finally, `pairs` and `ipairs` are not essential functions, so we could
> avoid the issue by just eliminating them (although that was tried and
> rejected [3]).

I once again raise the suggestion of making ipairs- and pairs- functionality 
2 more types of for loop ('for i, v over t do' and 'for k, v of t do'), with 
the former using 'local i,v=1 while t[i] do k=t[i] <...> i=i+1 end' 
semantics and the latter using 'local k,v = next(t) while t[k] do v=t[k] 
<...> k=next(t,k) end'.

Also, shouldn't next(), pairs(), and ipairs() technically go in the "table" 
library with unpack()?